Impact of MRI to clear the cervical spine after a negative CT for suspected spine trauma.

PURPOSE: To describe the clinical presentation of trauma patients receiving a negative cervical spine MRI (CSMRI) after cervical spine CT (CSCT) without acute findings and calculate the associated costs. METHODS: Our cohort consisted of 55 retrospectively reviewed consecutive trauma patients with CSMRI performed between October 2016 and March 2020, who had negative CSCT within 7 days of CSMRI and no other clinically significant injuries. Our outcome was the cost related to CSMRI, estimated by CSMRI charges and the charges related to additional hours of prolonged hospital stay from CT until MRI. RESULTS: The most common presenting mechanisms of injury were fall from standing (20/55, 36%), followed by motor vehicle accident (18, 33%). Indications for CSMRI included persistent neck pain (32/55, 58%), followed by recommendation from the radiologist (12, 22%), and neurological symptoms concerning for spine injury (9, 16%). An average of 11.2 h (median: 8.5, range: 0.2-25.4 h) passed from CSCT to CSMRI. Fifty-four (98%) of the CSMRI exams were completed within 24 h of the CSCT. The Medicare reimbursement for non-contrast CSMRI is $309 with the average cost for waiting in ED observation of $907. The total cost of CSMRI and associated wait time ranged from $325 to $2366 with an average of $1216 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of negative CSMRI following a negative CSCT for cervical spine clearance in trauma patients without other significant injury is substantial. The length of time that trauma patients remain in observation in the cervical collar prior to the finalized MRI exam is not only distressing to the patient but also adds costs to health care systems in both time and resources.

Code Conversion Impact Factor and Cash Flow Impact of International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, on a Large Multihospital Radiology Practice.

PURPOSE: The 2015 conversion of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) system from the ninth revision (ICD-9) to the 10th revision (ICD-10) was widely projected to adversely impact physician practices. We aimed to assess code conversion impact factor (CCIF) projections and revenue delay impact to help radiology groups better prepare for eventual conversion to ICD, 11th revision (ICD-11). METHODS: Studying 673,600 claims for 179 radiologists for the first year after ICD-10's implementation, we identified primary ICD-10 codes for the top 90th percentile of all examinations for the entire enterprise and each subspecialty division. Using established methodology, we calculated CCIFs (actual ICD-10 codes ÷ prior ICD-9 codes). To assess ICD-10's impact on cash flow, average monthly days in accounts receivable status was compared for the 12 months before and after conversion. RESULTS: Of all 69,823 ICD-10 codes, only 7,075 were used to report primary diagnoses across the entire practice, and just 562 were used to report 90% of all claims, compared with 348 under ICD-9. This translates to an overall CCIF of 1.6 for the department (far less than the literature-predicted 6). By subspecialty division, CCIFs ranged from 0.7 (breast) to 3.5 (musculoskeletal). Monthly average days in accounts receivable for the 12 months before and after ICD-10 conversion did not increase. CONCLUSION: The operational impact of the ICD-10 transition on radiology practices appears far less than anticipated with respect to both CCIF and delays in cash flow. Predictive models should be refined to help practices better prepare for ICD-11.